One thing I've found interesting about the Armstrong saga...

...besides the actual methods of doping and the science behind it, is the rabid determination of some people to defend the guy.

Yes, I believe the Federal case was a huge waste of time and resources. Wrong avenue to pursue things from. This is a sporting issue and should have started with the USADA long ago. But neither here nor there, with the USADA case and decision passed, I'm finding it absolutely fascinating to watch people blow a gasket defending him.

So what is it? Admiration? Patriotism? Stupidity? Inability to reconcile the fact that they were foolish enough to buy into the myth themselves?

What drives them to defend in the face of such overwhelming evidence?

Originally Posted by bigrider

Teh Lounge- "Its not just for weirdos anymore. It is for those trying to escape the noobsauce questions."

It seems kinda obvious when he's making $25,000 & $100,000 donations to UCI. Lol not to mention all his teammates singing like birds. And everyone that placed in the top 3 in the seven yrs he win the Tour all had positive tests...except one. (not lance)

I would have more respect for him if he just admitted it, but he never will. Whenever there is Millions of dollars to be made there is always going to be shady things going on whether it's coverups, payoffs, cheating, etc. Just like in any sport, Baseball, Football, Horse Racing especially.

Whether it is the oncology patient who touts LA’s support of cancer research (false) or the intellectually lazy who won’t venture beyond the LA public relations pablum they are spoon fed, it is only a matter of time when more information is released and it grows more difficult for people to regurgitate LA’s lies.

The LAF CEO is going to be earning every penny of his $320,000 annual salary soon. Not to mention the PR team who will be working overtime to obfuscate the truth about Armstrong’s lying and cheating by getting the press to publish “smokescreen stories” about oncology patients. LA's team has done it before and they’ll do it again. Heck, they’re already starting to ramp up!

Kind of funny though, we keep hearing: "any day now all the evidence is going to come out and everyone will be converted to Lance haters overnight.". But it's been a lot of any-day-nows and... still no beef. USADA has even been quoted as saying they're getting their case together to present to UCI and WADA. Seems like they should have their case well together by now - if they really have one. If it's so solid and obvious, they could silence the critics and true believers overnight. And yet...

Well the oddest ones are the one's who say they believe he doped and then spend all their time arguing about why none of the evidence is valid.

Of course for me the whole hero worship thing is odd anyway especially of athletes. Just seeing people on Facebook and such who now believe he doped writing about how he betrayed them and they'll never donate to his charity now, etc.

Either the charity does good work or it doesn't regardless of Armstrong's doping.

Kind of funny though, we keep hearing: "any day now all the evidence is going to come out and everyone will be converted to Lance haters overnight.". But it's been a lot of any-day-nows and... still no beef. USADA has even been quoted as saying they're getting their case together to present to UCI and WADA. Seems like they should have their case well together by now - if they really have one. If it's so solid and obvious, they could silence the critics and true believers overnight. And yet...

And yet if there had been arbitration agreed to it's not like they would have had the hearing the next day. It would have been several weeks at least: that's how the arbitration system works.

USADA and the UCI have said 2 weeks from now in various reports. That's really not unheard of at all. In fact, that's fairly quick to have an arbitration case put together.

The office I used to work with went to arbitration for PIP bills regularly. Very often we'd pull together the outstanding bills, denials and office notes and send them to our attorney to file. We'd then have to pull together a narrative, full timeline, medical necessity documentation, etc etc. It's not just a "point, click, print" procedure. With the UCI, I'd wager a guess that they're being very methodical to check everything twice to ensure completeness.

Back on topic:

As for his fans, I bring it up because there's a specific club around me that has a HUGH number of Armstrong fanboys, and they've literally become threatening (not that e-threats mean anything, but....) when the facts are laid in front of them. They bought the "witch hunt" schtick hook, line and sinker. And they're not really stupid people (a few of them actually are), so it makes me wonder what exactly makes them continue to defend the guy.

It's sad....in one case it was replied "he sent me some cool Nike shoes and he beat cancer, so he's gotta be clear. This is just a bunch of jealous a**holes trying to get his money."

Originally Posted by bigrider

Teh Lounge- "Its not just for weirdos anymore. It is for those trying to escape the noobsauce questions."

After years of defending the myth some have trouble accepting the fact that they were lied to for a decade and look for someone to blame for their foolish defense of a fraud.

Even thought it is obvious he doped it is too painful for some to face. Anyone who mentions facts is dismissed as an "obsessed hater". The mountain of evidence is said to be "Old news".....anything to transfer the blame for their gullibility to someone else.....anything to stop the discussion of something they do not want to hear and transfer to the blame to some anonymous guy on the internet and not their hero

I think the truth makes us feel foolish and stupid.
But it's so much worse to then go into full denial mode.
Because the former was a great success that was inspiring so we believed easily.
The later is a choice.
Why anyone deliberately chooses denial is beyond me.
Today in many places in society willful ignorance has become commonplace and admired.
And for those that don't take a position but say they all doped it's just as bad.
Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Ignoring wrong is approving of it.

I think a lot of people wonder why here in 'merica we are trying so vigorously to take down an icon that kicked cancers butt as well as everyone else's in the TDF 7 times. My Canadian friend asks me "why is the U.S. trying so hard to destroy the guy, everyone else cheated, and it was so long ago, can't they just let it go?".
I think the general feeling is that LA is a hero to a lot of people, and as far as they know, if he did cheat, so did everyone else, so why is he being singled out and treated "unfairly".

"I felt bad because I couldn't wheelie; until I met a man with no bicycle"

I think a lot of people wonder why here in 'merica we are trying so vigorously to take down an icon that kicked cancers butt as well as everyone else's in the TDF 7 times. My Canadian friend asks me "why is the U.S. trying so hard to destroy the guy, everyone else cheated, and it was so long ago, can't they just let it go?".
I think the general feeling is that LA is a hero to a lot of people, and as far as they know, if he did cheat, so did everyone else, so why is he being singled out and treated "unfairly".

I think a lot of people wonder why here in 'merica we are trying so vigorously to take down an icon that kicked cancers butt as well as everyone else's in the TDF 7 times. My Canadian friend asks me "why is the U.S. trying so hard to destroy the guy, everyone else cheated, and it was so long ago, can't they just let it go?".
I think the general feeling is that LA is a hero to a lot of people, and as far as they know, if he did cheat, so did everyone else, so why is he being singled out and treated "unfairly".

Wow dude.

This is pretty much what I'm talking about. "It was so long ago." "Just let it go." "They all cheated."

How are those valid rebuttals to the evidence that's out there?

Originally Posted by bigrider

Teh Lounge- "Its not just for weirdos anymore. It is for those trying to escape the noobsauce questions."

I can't speak for anyone else in this matter, but I for one want to think he did what he did without doping. The story is great if he really did defeat cancer and then make a comeback to win 7 TdF.

It just reeks of the old hero stories of old. Adversity and victory in the same lifetime.

I don't defend LA, but you have to admit, he went a long time getting a lot of tests done and there is no hard evidence that he doped.

Eye witnesses without corroboration is hearsay. I am no lawyer and do not have a grasp of the legalities. It does sound to me that the USADA is/was on a witch hunt. LA really had no chance to win in the fight, because they held all the marbles. The fact that LA is and has been a total a$$hat has certainly come out, so it is no surprise that people are speaking against him.

Member of Team Collin, a group of ordinary moreons going to extraordinary levels of awesome in the fight against cancer.

I can't speak for anyone else in this matter, but I for one want to think he did what he did without doping. The story is great if he really did defeat cancer and then make a comeback to win 7 TdF.

It just reeks of the old hero stories of old. Adversity and victory in the same lifetime.

I don't defend LA, but you have to admit, he went a long time getting a lot of tests done and there is no hard evidence that he doped.

Eye witnesses without corroboration is hearsay. I am no lawyer and do not have a grasp of the legalities. It does sound to me that the USADA is/was on a witch hunt. LA really had no chance to win in the fight, because they held all the marbles. The fact that LA is and has been a total a$$hat has certainly come out, so it is no surprise that people are speaking against him.

His '99 sample had EPO in them, he had a cortisone positive the same year. We know that for a fact, and there's all these other reports that he had positive tests and a Biopassport indicative of doping.

Eye witness without corroboration is not hearsay, it's either accurate or not, but it's not hearsay regardless.

Eye witness without corroboration is not hearsay, it's either accurate or not, but it's not hearsay regardless.

People have gone to the electric chair on the testimony of eye witnesses without "corroboration". The whole "it's all hearsay" smacks of the well-oiled PR spin machine cranking up for a last ditch effort.

There's an old Mark Twain (I think it was his) quote that goes something like, it's easier to deceive people than to get them to admit that they've been deceived.

wait a sec...

You do understand that the feds did not really care from a sporting standpoint whether Lance doped or did not, right? They weren't out to strip him of his wins. That may have ended up a by-product but was not the goal. What they were concerned about was: IF doping in fact took place, were tax payer funds provided to the USPS, and then to US Postal cycling, used to fund that doping. That they did not pursue the case further does not mean in any way that they found no evidence of doping. The only thing it means is that they could not prove that any doping used tax dollars. Now I don't know about you, but I don't want people getting money from my taxes and then buying blow* with it...

Unfortunately for Lance, rumors about US Postal exposed him to federal investigation, and enabled the feds to use subpoenas to get testimony and evidence that USADA would likely NEVER have been able to get. They just don't have the power or the clout. If he'd been on some other team, it would never have happened and USADA wouldn't have a case.

Them's the breaks Lance... The only 'vendetta' anyone has against you is a vendetta against cheating and lying...If you'd kept a lower profile, you might have gotten away with it.

*(or EPO, or CERA, or Aranesp, or steroids, or HGH... quite a list of products our man Lance has been associated with isn't it?)

People have gone to the electric chair on the testimony of eye witnesses without "corroboration". The whole "it's all hearsay" smacks of the well-oiled PR spin machine cranking up for a last ditch effort.

There's an old Mark Twain (I think it was his) quote that goes something like, it's easier to deceive people than to get them to admit that they've been deceived.

Yeah , I don't follow this logic either. People go to jail/prison all the time based on a SINGLE person saying "I SAW THAT". No corroboration, and everyone acknowledges that eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate, yet still it is the slam dunk that any prosecutor wants to have available at trial.

I can't speak for anyone else in this matter, but I for one want to think he did what he did without doping. "

You and probably 80% of the rest of the U.S., based on what I have seen.

"The story is great if he really did defeat cancer and then make a comeback to win 7 TdF. It just reeks of the old hero stories of old. Adversity and victory in the same lifetime."

As LeMond said many years ago, it's either the greatest comeback of all time or the biggest fraud in the history of sport.

"I don't defend LA, but you have to admit, he went a long time getting a lot of tests done and there is no hard evidence that he doped."

Actually you are defending him by parroting his talking points...but like many of his defenders, you don't opine on whether you think he actually doped or not...I guess it is easier for you not to deal with that.

"Eye witnesses without corroboration is hearsay. "

Actually, sworn eyewitness testimony is not hearsay, but you can learn the difference by looking it up or watching any courtroom drama on TV. As for corroboration, it appears they have sworn testimony from a large number of former teammates, several of whom are considered pillars of the sport, as well as others close to him in his daily life.

" I am no lawyer and do not have a grasp of the legalities."

Most of us aren't, either, but it doesn't take a Harvard law degree to understand these concepts.

" It does sound to me that the USADA is/was on a witch hunt."

Again, another quote from LA...and that implies he should be left alone because there is no evidence and/or guilt. Whatever they had on him will be released in the next month or two but based on early reports, between the eyewitness testimony and re-tested samples, it is daunting.

" LA really had no chance to win in the fight, because they held all the marbles."

True, they had a mountain of evidence, which had it been flimsy, I am sure he would have delighted in demolishing once and for all. Because that one arbitration hearing is all that stood between him and innocence for the rest of his life. Instead he folded his cards, knowing full well the consequences.

" The fact that LA is and has been a total a$$hat has certainly come out, so it is no surprise that people are speaking against him.

Very true, what goes around comes around, and karma is a b!tch! You do have to wonder, if LA had been a reasonably nice guy throughout his career instead of burning bridges with teammates, thumbing his nose at regulators, and being an a$$hat with the press, whether this all just would have quietly gone away years ago.

Very true, what goes around comes around, and karma is a b!tch! You do have to wonder, if LA had been a reasonably nice guy throughout his career instead of burning bridges with teammates, thumbing his nose at regulators, and being an a$$hat with the press, whether this all just would have quietly gone away years ago.

At a minimum treating Landis better might have prevented the whole thing.

I can't speak for anyone else in this matter, but I for one want to think he did what he did without doping. The story is great if he really did defeat cancer and then make a comeback to win 7 TdF.

It just reeks of the old hero stories of old. Adversity and victory in the same lifetime.

I don't defend LA, but you have to admit, he went a long time getting a lot of tests done and there is no hard evidence that he doped.

Eye witnesses without corroboration is hearsay. I am no lawyer and do not have a grasp of the legalities. It does sound to me that the USADA is/was on a witch hunt. LA really had no chance to win in the fight, because they held all the marbles. The fact that LA is and has been a total a$$hat has certainly come out, so it is no surprise that people are speaking against him.

That's right. You are not a lawyer and therefore you have no business spewing out legal terms and telling us what they mean. MY GOD!!!! First, there is a mountain of hard evidence that he doped. Second, eyewitness testimony IS NOT (THAT MEANS IS NOT) hearsay. I will say it again. EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS NOT HEARSAY. It is direct evidence. Why is it so hard to understand? Joe Blow witnesses a murder and testifies that he he saw Jack Mack pull the trigger. This is not hearsay. It is direct eyewitness testimony. Whey then is it hearsay when Tyler says he saw Lance dope? Please!!!! Eyewitness without corroboration is still NOT HEARSAY. Again, get a clue and then come back.

That's right. You are not a lawyer and therefore you have no business spewing out legal terms and telling us what they mean. MY GOD!!!! First, there is a mountain of hard evidence that he doped. Second, eyewitness testimony IS NOT (THAT MEANS IS NOT) hearsay. I will say it again. EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS NOT HEARSAY. It is direct evidence. Why is it so hard to understand? Joe Blow witnesses a murder and testifies that he he saw Jack Mack pull the trigger. This is not hearsay. It is direct eyewitness testimony. Whey then is it hearsay when Tyler says he saw Lance dope? Please!!!! Eyewitness without corroboration is still NOT HEARSAY. Again, get a clue and then come back.

Eyewitness testimony may not be hearsay, but it's not unimpeachable either.

Eyewitness testimony may not be hearsay, but it's not unimpeachable either.

So what? All evidence, whether it be eyewitness testimony or a smoking gun, can be attacked for its veracity by the opposing side. It will still likely be admitted as evidence. Hearsay, on the other hand, is generally not admitted as evidence, although it can be under several circumstances.

The fact remains that the eyewitness testimony against Lance is simply not hearsay. I don't need a lesson on the law. The people spewing out the term hearsay and the like are the ones in need of some education.

You do understand that the feds did not really care from a sporting standpoint whether Lance doped or did not, right? They weren't out to strip him of his wins. That may have ended up a by-product but was not the goal. What they were concerned about was: IF doping in fact took place, were tax payer funds provided to the USPS, and then to US Postal cycling, used to fund that doping. That they did not pursue the case further does not mean in any way that they found no evidence of doping. The only thing it means is that they could not prove that any doping used tax dollars. Now I don't know about you, but I don't want people getting money from my taxes and then buying blow* with it...

Unfortunately for Lance, rumors about US Postal exposed him to federal investigation, and enabled the feds to use subpoenas to get testimony and evidence that USADA would likely NEVER have been able to get. They just don't have the power or the clout. If he'd been on some other team, it would never have happened and USADA wouldn't have a case.

Them's the breaks Lance... The only 'vendetta' anyone has against you is a vendetta against cheating and lying...If you'd kept a lower profile, you might have gotten away with it.

*(or EPO, or CERA, or Aranesp, or steroids, or HGH... quite a list of products our man Lance has been associated with isn't it?)

Yes, I understand that. However they may well have had a far better chance at making charges stick had the USADA case gone forward first. That's why I say it was the wrong way to go about this.

Originally Posted by bigrider

Teh Lounge- "Its not just for weirdos anymore. It is for those trying to escape the noobsauce questions."